/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15396400]

I've noticed that there's been a lot more accelerationism/land/fangednoumenaposting recently, so I made this chart for those interested in understanding it. I tried to prune the required reading down as much as possible so it didn't seem overwhelming. Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.15396426]

why?
i don't even read 10 pages a day

[Anonymous No.15396452]

>>15396426
anon, this is your father speaking, you must read more than 10 pages a day so that you may become wise and fulfill your duties

[Anonymous No.15396715]

come on, is this really all necessary? Why not just read fanged noumena and some good commentary?
Even Hegel, who's first order of operations in a lot of his stuff to tell people to not just skip to the answers, admits that the long, arduous path he sets for one to develop an authentic individual apprehension of philosophical ideas is not the only possible path. i can't believe all these books you've listed are necessary to get a working understanding of accelerationism. why raise mountains of "required background reading" in a world where things are difficult enough to understand as they are, without added pretense?

[Anonymous No.15396731]

come on, is this really all necessary? Why not just read fanged noumena and some good commentary? Even Hegel, who's first order of operations in much of his writing is to warn people that you can't just skip to the answers, admits that the long, arduous path he sets for one to develop an authentic individual apprehension of whatever philosophical ideas he is expositing is not the only path possible, and that simpler and more immediate paths which achieve an equally authentic understanding may be developed. i can't believe all these books you've listed are necessary to get a working understanding of accelerationism. why raise mountains of "required background reading" in a world where things are difficult enough to understand as they are, without added pretense?

[Anonymous No.15396752]

>>15396731
based hegelposter

[Anonymous No.15396791]

Thank you for posting this, I've been meaning to research the book paths to read Anti-Oedipus

[Anonymous No.15396820]

>>15396731
Perhaps I should edit the guide to be less insistent that things are "required" - You can read as few and as many of these texts as you want. This is more of a resource for someone who really wants to know what Land and accelerationism are about.

If you want the easy way, yeah, just go on youtube and search for "accelerationism explained" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.15396841]

>>15396731
This. Just get started with something.
If someone is only ready to read Fanged noumena after all this, then what do they have to read before they tackle Kant, Capital and Schizophrenia, Marx? All of which are much more extensive and complicated works than F N and each would warrant years of extensive study.

[Anonymous No.15397155]

Alright, thanks for the feedback friends. Here's an updated version that makes it more clear that not everything is required, and gives a bit of explanation as to why the reader might be interested in actually reading all of these books. Catch me spamming this in all future accelerationist and chart threads.

[Anonymous No.15397170]

The fuck did I just read.

I'm saving this for when I have free time.

[Anonymous No.15397193]

>>15396841
>If someone is only ready to read Fanged noumena after all this, then what do they have to read before they tackle Kant, Capital and Schizophrenia, Marx? All of which are much more extensive and complicated works than F N and each would warrant years of extensive study.
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15397207]

>>15397155
Part of the issue is wether you can really jump right into Kant with the prolegomena. It might be doable, but you should probably at least have a cursory understanding of the predecessors he is responding to.
I imagine reading Deleuze and Guattari is probably similar, though I don't know precisely what you would need to read as prerequisite, I imagine there's quite a lot though.
I would also consider basically skipping the Communist manifesto. It contains very little of value and there are likely much better and more informative introductions to Marxist theory.

[Anonymous No.15397271]

>>15397207
I agree with most of what you're saying here. Understanding Kantian philosophy is going to be a lot easier if you've read Hume, Leibnitz, Descartes, etc. beforehand, but the guide is already pretty dense as it is, and it would just end up looking like a generic history of western philosophy otherwise. As far as Deleuze and Guatarri go though, I think the texts listed beforehand should be more than enough for Anti-Oedipus to be fruitful. Anti-Oedipus despite being such a complicated book, repeats itself enough to stand on its own pretty well to be honest.

As far as The Communist Manifesto goes, I know what you mean, in that it's not really philosophy, nor is Land a Marxist, however I do think there is a good point in it being there. Firstly, a huge part of accelerationism is speculative fiction trying to make itself real, and The Communist Manifesto is probably one of the first works to seriously attempt this. Communism is literally a hyperstition. Another important aspect of accelerationism is of course the immense presence of capitalism as an alien and totalizing thing that is constantly evolving, and the Manifesto describes this quite succinctly.

"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere"

Practically Landian. Plus its so short that bang for your buck that you get from it is really good as an intro. At least a bit of Marxism is essential to Land and telling someone to start with Capital or something is a mistake.

[Anonymous No.15397280]

>thing happen = bad due to system
>bad = good due to thinking
>ultimately thing is good in end but only if it bad
>becus if good thing then system is working and it bad due to bad = good due to thinking and good != good due to thinking so good is bad and bad is good but it ok becuz cyberpunks are cool and i like jungle music and anime and drugs

[Anonymous No.15397307]

>>15397280
There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" in accelerationist philosophy. The "system" or "the world" moves in the direction and speed it does irrespective of your judgements of something being good or bad. Changing the world by making good or bad things happen does not work, because the goodness and badness was only your judgment. I'm not sure what else you're trying to say because its couched in an ironic retard speak, but you definitely don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.15397375]

>>15397307
>Changing the world by making good or bad things happen does not work
proofs

[Anonymous No.15397382]

Let the meme die

[Anonymous No.15397516]

Saved.

Do I need any philosophy background to dive into this chart? What about the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.15397542]

>>15397375
I suppose what I mean more is that "changing the world by making good or bad things happen does not work the way you think it does." Sometimes making bad things happen will only tighten down and intensify the security systems of whatever you're trying to overcome. Sometimes making good things happen will only be subsumed and used to justify the continued existence of whatever you're trying to overcome. Individual acts of terror or charity have never had any effect, these are merely symbolic gestures of your own strategy, your own judgement. If terror or charity does not beget more and more terror or charity then it's meaningless.

Change comes about through a runaway intensification process; a desire which reinforces itself, which becomes stronger the more it is resisted, which becomes more resilient in chaos. Achieving this effect is a tactical determination. Change does not come from strategic intentions, change comes from tactics.

[Anonymous No.15397563]

>>15397516
Everyone has to start somewhere. If you've quite seriously never touched philosophy before, yeah, these books will be kind of confusing, but the way only for them to become not-confusing is to read them. The For Beginners section contains books that are about as easy as they come for the authors in question.
Technically you can start wherever the hell you want, but the point of this guide is to provide someone interested in the topic with the most essential works to the topic, and anything more would just make it oversized and confusing, it's already quite enough.

[Anonymous No.15397586]

i'm not OP, but to people that ask if they need to learn entire field of philosophy before touching Fanged Noumena: this is a chart for understanding Land. If you want to study the philosophers in this chart, then you would definitely have to go back to the Greeks, and to study Greeks you'd have to go back to Egyptians and Pre-socratics if more of their stuff survived. But our mind isn't a neat pyramid of blocks supporting each other with Greeks at the bottom, it's more like a net of almost random stuff that we pick up and use as guiding lights. You could grasp the general ideas of most philosophers listed there even if you jump into them blindly, you will just miss some references and probably will find some of their claims too bold or dubious (because the philosophers assume that you've read others that went into more details).

You could even jump into Land blindly and pick up some of the concepts, although who knows which ones and how would you interpret them. It seems like a lot of people do exactly that since he has numerous different interpretations from completely opposite camps.

[Anonymous No.15397726]

>>15396400
Blade runner and in particular Necromancer should be at the top of this list along with Marx and the rest. In fact I don’t think it’s possible to read a lot of Land’s mid work if you haven’t read Neuromancer.

[Anonymous No.15398638]

>>15396400
This is a cool chart based